|
I know that sounds like an excuse, but failing to notice that they have a very robust echo chamber where their decided upon tautologies are repeated from all sides - the radio, the tv, their magazines and their blogs. Then as they gain credence with the entire right and parts of the middle, who think the repetition from many sources means it is true, you start to see ALL the more centrist cable news people during the day using their phrases.
One example is the current tax cut issue. The polls have always shown that far under 50% care if the top marginal rate is made permanent. But, listening in the last few days, the phrases used on TV all take Republican terminology - first saying everyone should get a tax cut - playing to a sense of "fairness" - ignoring that everyone does benefit from changing the lower brackets. This has now morphed to McConnell's language that no one should see a tax increase. (This treats the non-permanent tax cuts as the de facto rates - converting the argument from not writing legislation to make never affordable tax cuts permanent to the idea that the Democrats are writing legislation that raises taxes.)
The media has also repeated ad nauseum the Republican lie that many affected at that level are really small businesses. Worse, their language is so imprecise that many think it applies to any business with revenues over $250,000 - which is not the case. In fact, the bulk of businesses caught here, probably would not be considered "small" and never should have been allowed to file as just - ie the Chicago Tribune and Bechtel.
One example where this worked was that in a Boston Globe article on a Chamber of Commerce speech, the random business person aske about the question argued that extending the tax cut would stimulate the economy, but she added it was too complex for her to understand. (What is not really complex to understand, is that the CBO and other legitimate studies project it among the least likely actions to do this.)
While it is important how Democrats speak to the country, I would suggest looking at the same recriminations that were discussed in 2005 in the wake of losing in 2004. Remember Frank and his book on Kansas and Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant"? Both books did have interesting insight, but because they ignored that 2004 (and possibly 2000) were not fair tests of the two messages. Given the 2004 results, it is clear that even making it a clean election with adequate voting machines, would have led to a President Kerry.
Now, go beyond that and imagine a media that fairly reported the campaign. That immediately reviewed the official Navy records that Kerry put on his web site in April 2004 (that many RW posters STILL think were never released) and demanded the liars supply some back up, given that it was the official Navy record they were challenging. But, worse than even that, they did not cover our nominee's designated major speeches to the degree that they covered an inconsequential Palin fund raiser two weeks after the election. They also repeated many Republican versions of his position rather than his position - later claiming he changed when he gave the position he always had.
Now, think of the charge of elitism, which is why I went back to 2004. The supposedly neutral media repeated the garbage that Bush was just the average guy next door, while Kerry was a stiff elitist born to privilege, who never has interacted with the "people". Now, the fact is that Bush's family was from the same elite class and he grew up far wealthier. In addition, where Kerry, did not use his strings (he dated Jackie Kennedy's step sister and roomed with the nephew of the two Bundys in the Kennedy/LBJ administrations) to avoid service. When there, the same NAVY records, available on Kerry's web site, show a man described as generating very unusual personal loyalty in the men reporting to him - in all his assignments. So, much that an early supervisor gave him additional responsibility informally counseling sailors needing someone to talk to. There was a lot in that record, written 30 years before, that answered so many of the personal smears - as well as the liars. Bush, on the other hand, in his "champagne" NG unit was essentially protected by his silver spoon when he did not do things required and lost flying privileges.
Skipping forward to 2008 and now, with Obama being called "elitist", the charge is exposed for what it is - anti-intellectualism. Where Kerry was from a wonderful intact family, that did have ties to the NE elite, Obama was the son of an incredibly brilliant woman, who really made a difference in a third world country and a brilliant father he did not grow up with. He was brought up by a single mother supported by her wonderful parents. Defining him as elite is done because of things that he gained through merit - going to Columbia and Harvard Law and becoming a Harvard Law Review editor. He is elite - only in the best sense of the word.
Both Kerry and Obama do not insult their listeners by offering mere slogan and simple (but attractive) lies as solutions. But, it was partly the media declaring that what they (especially Kerry) said was too complicated for real folks to understand. Both actually are quite skilled at explaining their proposals - without the complex language that they easily used in the Senate where its precision was needed. But, they can't compete in simplicity with the simple sentences and thought of a Bush or Palin. The problem is a media that pretends not to understand them - and doesn't call the Republicans on the fact that what they are saying is wrong, doesn't make sense, or ignores reality.
In Obama, we have a very extroverted, charming, very likable man with extraordinary eloquence, and seriousness of purpose. (Other than extroverted - which he isn't, Kerry also has these characteristics.) In addition, both started as activists, not as typical politicians. It is natural for both to reach out to encourage activism among the population. That should be what the country wants.
My concern with arguing for popularism is that it often can be a tool for a demagogue - think Sarah Palin or the tea party. It is the very use of intellectual honesty constraining the most enthusiastic speeches given by an Obama or a Kerry that keep them from becoming demagogues using their natural charisma and eloquence. Without that integrity, either could have {/i] every bit as much a man of the people as Bush or Palin - and been more inspiring doing it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(477 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
